The Girl Ghetto in Crime Fiction: Sarah Weinman

The Girl Ghetto in Crime Fiction

What Sarah Says

And the debate goes on….

The Book Tarts are thrilled to have Sarah Weinman join our discussion on crime fiction’s girl ghetto, as she always has something intriguing to say at ConfessionsofanIdiosyncraticMind.  She’s the crime fiction columnist for the Baltimore Sun, a contributing editor at January Magazine, and the fiction editor for SHOTS.  Her reviews and articles have appeared in myriad publications, including the Washington Post, the Denver Post, and Mystery Scene.

The Lipstick Chronicles:  What's your take on the "girl ghetto" in crime fiction?  Does it exist, and, if so, is it reader-driven, author-driven or purely industry-driven, like the movie biz where male action stars consistently get more press and bigger bucks?

Sarah:  I think it's a mixture of all those things—reader driven in that they respond to whatever marketing push is being put forward to them by publishers, or if they are less savvy, paying attention to the bestseller lists which, on the crime fiction front, does tend to skew male, and then they look for authors similar to the ones they know and love, so if those are male, so will the next batch. The more I think about it, actually, the more I believe it resembles a vicious circle that's awfully difficult to break.

But I think the so-called girl ghetto arises from the fact that even amongst the mystery crowd, there's a certain subset of books written by women for women—there aren't too many men who will admit to reading cat mysteries, or knitting mysteries, or even chick lit mysteries, but then again, why do those subgenres exist in the first place? Because readers seem to want that -- or at least, publishers believe readers want that.

TLC:  Do you think male readers want a different type of story than women?  Do guys want that “loner seeks justice” book while girls seek out stories about relationships?

Sarah:  If that were truly the case, how to explain why Jack Reacher, Lee Child's bestselling protagonist, has a phenomenal appeal among women?

Seriously, I think both are true. It's dangerous to generalize, but considering how most men are conditioned at some level to reject emotional display, I suppose they don't want to read about such things in fiction (or, more drastically, they turn to non-fiction and don't bother with fictional worlds.) So anything that caters to fantasy on some level—be it a hardboiled world with guns blazing—fits in with their world view. But I bet if there was more hard-core data looking at socioeconomic status, race, religion, and what country you're originally from, there'd be all sorts of different subsets that show up. American crime readers, male or female, read very different stuff from European, Japanese, or other foreign readers.

Never mind that there seem to be plenty of women who adore serial killer thrillers and can't abide the cozy stuff, and even though that's become a stereotype all its own, it still manages to surprise. In the end I think it depends what any given person looks for in fiction -- pure escapism, a close examination of feelings, facing fears -- and they find it in what they seek out, whether they be male or female.

TLC:  I was at the VFB this year when a guy in the audience during Laura's all-girl panel had the gall to ask, "If you want men to read your books, why don't you write like a man?"  Any comment on this type of thinking?  Was he right?

Sarah:  If "writing like a man" means focusing more primarily on plot and pacing and less on family and emotion, then I still wonder why that particular fan asked her the question...

TLC:  Are the Edgars®, and even Bouchercon, more like a "boys' club," with female authors who don't write hard-boiled books getting overlooked/taken less seriously?  Or do the girls get too worked up every time Otto opens his mouth, when we should just focus on writing good books?

Sarah:  Well, in hindsight, the "controversy" surrounding Otto's columns is nothing new and designed to push buttons. He's obviously good at it, because the same result happens time and time again -- women get upset, people pay more attention to Otto, and the cycle continues. I'm sure he'll trot out the same stuff next year when he's run out of stuff to talk about. It's really almost become tongue-in-cheek, considering that he's not about to stop selling cozies in his bookshop.

So the focus HAS to be on writing good books. And also by extension, more serious questions have to be asked which is likely more controversial: do the people who gravitate towards cozies or more genre fare possess less talent and potential than those who attempt bigger themes? And why do people choose the paths which lead them to write the books they do?

Something else to remember is that writers don't read the way fans do—they either don't read at the same speed, or spend their time deconstructing and nitpicking, and whatnot. So a lot of the "boys club" mentality is more due to the fact that writers tend to read—or at least say they do—books by their friends and immediate peers. And if they are men and their writer friends are men...then that's who they know and by extension, take seriously.

TLC:  If you're female and don't write hard-boiled, you tend to get lumped into the cozy or traditional mystery category, no matter what you do.  Any way out of this except to write two series and make sure one is bloody?

Sarah:  Sadly, try taking the same concept and giving the protagonist a sex change. Do people pay more attention to female writers with male protagonists? Now I'm curious….

TLC:  In past blogs, you've pretty plainly stated there is a clear gender difference in harder boiled crime fiction written by men and women, noting that, in your eyes, female crime writers don't seem to "go for broke" the same way the guys do.  Can you elaborate?

Sarah:  Sure. Some of it, as I alluded to earlier, is conditioning -- women in general have a fear of being too out there, lest they be viewed as a bitch, aloof, strident, or whatever. A man can be fearless and he's applauded; a woman is too often put down, especially by other women. And I wonder if this unspoken fear is why there's such a dearth of female noir. I don't mean hardboiled or thriller novels, because there are certainly plenty of female writers mining this territory who sell incredibly well, but real nihilism that's evident in the most cited noir novelists -- Charles Willeford comes to mind. Is it because such men aren't as "grounded" in family roots, or they are more in touch with their inner dysfunction? Hard to know, but somehow by mining really horrible territory, they produce good fiction.

So female noir novelists off the top of my head -- Denise Mina sure comes close. Vicki Hendricks, definitely. Penelope Evans' FREEZING was a more bizarre take, but she really nailed the antisocial protagonist prototype with morgue-assistant Stuart. Carol Anne Davis, who is unjustly neglected, has been probing the depths of depravity with compassion and intelligence for years. I think there are more such writers in foreign countries because they have different cultural contexts, different mindsets. French crime writers, male or female, seem to gravitate more towards the weird and nihilistic. I've only read male Italian mystery novelists, but based on their books, I wouldn't be surprised if women writers were just as bizarrely inclined as their male counterparts. Scandinavian writers like Karin Fossum, Karin Alvtegen and Pernille Rygg aren't exactly writing noir but they do explore themes in very different -- almost colder, more clinical -- ways than their American counterparts.

I guess I wish there were more out there who are American or British. Which is why I seem to gravitate towards mainstream fiction that takes crime fiction elements and absolutely runs with them in new directions. Lionel Shriver's WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN gets into seriously uncomfortable territory, but it was necessary, disturbing and an incredible book. Emily Maguire's TAMING THE BEAST (which will be out in the UK in the fall, North America possibly later) cuts so deep into psychosexual territory that I was literally in shock for days afterwards. Why are they pushing boundaries that too many female crime novelists aren't? Because they are asking different questions as writers, and giving themselves the freedom to answer it as best they know how.

That said, writing a cozy is bloody hard work. I know I couldn't do it, because it's about sticking to a defined structure and making minor changes, and it would drive me crazy to hew so close to a particular -- for lack of better word -- formula. Cozies aren't going to change the world but they are fun to read, and undoubtedly fun to write. But why do certain writers gravitate towards those instead of "bigger" fiction? Is it knowing one's limitations, or not being overly analytical/critical about having something to say? Is it big picture versus little picture, macro versus micro?

But a macho thriller that tries to "go for broke" and fails because it's cliche after cliche with bad characters and poor pacing will bore me just as much, if not more, than a bad cozy.

TLC:  Do you think sometimes it takes a series writer getting out of that box and into stand-alones before he or she 'earns' respect amongst peers and reviewers, not to mention readers in the form of bigger sales

Sarah:  Well before we get any further, let it be said for the record that Harlan Coben got started writing standalones. Granted, PLAY DEAD and MIRACLE CURE aren't about to see the light of day anytime soon and they are really rough, with only glimmers to Coben's voice, but he only began his series several years later.

But I think the series/standalone question is more about a structure/constraint question. Series have inherent constraints -- the protagonist has to live another day, after all, and certain beloved characters must as well. Which is why when an author messes with that, he or she gets fans seriously pissed off (think Elizabeth George with her last book.) And writing continuing characters allows a writer to learn craft and all the other tools of writing -- up to a point, which is when the constraints don't fit anymore. Hence the standalone trend, mostly because to involve a series character in particular situations would turn that character into someone else entirely. But standalones allow writers to stretch in different ways and not worry about those pesky constraints that limit what you can really do in a series. I don't think it's an accident that Laura's standalones explore deeper, richer ground than the Tess novels. Because Tess, as much as she's grown since BALTIMORE BLUES, can't deviate too much from those early parameters, because then she wouldn't be recognizably Tess anymore.

Of course, here's the 20/20 hindsight thing. Take Dennis Lehane. He was a literary fiction writer till A DRINK IN THE WAR sold, but I doubt any of his writing peers in his early days would have denied he had tremendous talent. Perhaps the only thing that's surprising is how successful MYSTIC RIVER turned out to be, but he was always destined for greater things than a pure mystery series could offer. IMO, he's a mainstream fiction writer who uses the crime novel as his working template. But no matter what he wrote, he always had "something to say." And I think the writers that are in it for the long haul, who are career-minded and not just about staying published any way possible, always want to have something to add to the canon that is tangible, concrete and lasting. I'd like to think that you can always tell, but that's not exactly the case.

TLC:  Anything else you want to add on the subject...or completely unrelated to the subject?

Sarah:  I was about to launch into one of my pet peeves -- why crime fiction protagonists are often in some sort of cultural or religious vacuum, when the vast majority of humans are not -- but that's another rant for another day. More that I'm fascinated by what prompts writers to choose the paths they do, and whether some people know instinctively what their limitations are and what themes to explore -- or if they just want to write pure entertainment for entertainment's sake. But in the end, I think the bottom line of a good book, whatever the subgenre happens to be, is that it HAS to make me -- aka the reader -- care. I'm tired of reading well-constructed books that have no soul. I'm tired of protagonists who don't grow and change and who make the same mistakes over and over again, even if the writing is technically superior. I'm tired of plots that follow the same tropes over and over again. Make me care. Whether you're a male or female writer.

TLC:  Thanks so much, Sarah!  If you’re at Bouchercon, Harley’s invited everyone to her suite for cocktails, so bring a couple friends!

STAY TUNED: Tomorrow, the series concludes with comments from best-selling hunk Harlan Coben (yes, he made us say that, but we’re believers anyway).

Comments

[sarah s.]

Why does Lee Child appeal to women? Two words: hubba hubba.

[nancy]

I have a personal reading bias: I dislike books with melodrama.--Which I find most loner-PI-on-trail-of-serial-killer books to be. At the risk of being strident here, I think such simplistic melodrama can be mistaken for quality work. (All those Hemingway wannabes?) Where you say women writers fear being "out there," I say we avoid writing melodrama and seek to illuminate all sides of an issue. (My protagonist, at least, definitely does not live in a cultural vacuum, and that definitely makes her world more complicated than some readers like to bother with.) Our writing is complex, but perhaps therefore taken for wishy-washy?

It's a shame that ground-breaking books such as those written by the Book Tarts are considered dismissable cozies just because our protagonists are women and we dare use wit and satire instead of weaponry. As I said in my comment under David's blog entry, I think we're breaking new ground in the ways a traditional mystery story can be told. We're stretching that "defined structure" you mention (which, by the way, how come the writers you cite get to use the literary form of the mystery, too, but women writers are confined by the "defined structure" by which you mean a formula?)

It's going to take a bestseller like Jennifer Weiner to burst on the mystery scene to get the attention and change the minds of the critical community, isn't it? Maybe she'll be able to demonstrate that just because some women are choosing to break away from the traditional formulas, we produce something worth reading.

Nancy

[Rochelle]

Sarah, very thoughtful, insightful comments.

[Mary]

Sarah you've said it so much better than I ever could.

Now about those cocktails in Harley's suite .....

[PollyPI]

Sounds like my life. Ha ha!

[Kathy Sweeney]

Great insights. I particulary liked the point that you don't have to hit one out of the park on your first book in order to be successful. That's encouraging for prospective writers. Less pressure to write Gone With the Wind, and so forth...

[Harley]

Wait--now I have a suite?

[Elaine]

Actually, Harley - they book two suites for you. But shush, okay? I wasn't supposed to tell.

[Elaine]

Okay, I lied. It's just one. The Presidential Suite overlooking the bright lights of Chi. You know the one-with two grand pianos, six bedrooms, sauna, steam room, your personal maid, cook, sous chef and pastry chef. Nothing too outrageous, but trust me, you'll love it.